A Model Pulpit Candidate.
By E. P. Marvin
DEAR BROTHER: Your report in the morning paper, of the performance of yesterday's candidate for your pulpit, is doubtless your idea of what a minister ought to be for the present times. You say that attendants were “fortunate” in listening to him, but you do not indicate that saints were edified or sinners converted. You say he was “eloquent, musical, and poetic.” Indeed, it must have been a first-class entertainment! It is evident that Paul would not fill your bill; for he was “rude in speech,” and he plainly declared to the Corinthians that he “came not with excellency of speech nor of wisdom,” and he “knew nothing among them but Christ and him crucified,” although he addressed far more cultured and refined audiences at Corinth than yours. Peter could not stand before you; for he was neither “poetic,” “musical,” nor “eloquent,” and his sermons were not “entertainments.” When he preached, sinners were “pricked in their hearts and cried out” for mercy. Christ himself, the Prince of preachers, by no means fills your ideal of a preacher for the times. He never dreamed of making the dispensation of gospel truth entertaining to the world. He was very plain and blunt and offensive. Not unfrequently, “He talked of judgment, fire, and pain,
And the sorrow of endless night;
He warned of a place you would not have
Mentioned to ears polite.”
No such preachers can be “attractive” to worldlings, and draw rich pew-rents, so as to “make the thing pay.” You say he was “pleasing.” Was it to impenitent men or to God? Paul says, “If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” A “charming” sermon never converted a soul. Do you want your preacher to remove the offense of the cross, and “study to please,” like a play-actor? You say he is “the most popular preacher in N—, and that he is on his vacation.” Well, “popularity” is a very questionable commendation in a world that despised and cast out our Master. Did he predict “popularity” of his faithful followers? Read the tenth chapter of Matthew. Worldly wisdom also would dictate caution concerning men who are “starring it” through vacations. The art of ecclesiastical coquetting is not unknown in the pulpit, and in its practice men appear at their best. Their museum of attractions might not supply the demand for entertainment in your church a single year. There is abundant variety in the gospel, but outside of it men in the pulpit soon come to their wits' end. You say he is “a whole-souled, witty gentleman, and that he is popular and social with everybody, regardless of creed, sect, or belief.” Then one curse of the Lord rests upon him. Luke 6: 26. You say that your church will give him a call and make no mistake, and that if he comes, the people of N— will lose a citizen not easily replaced. Now, my brother, notice that you have not noted in this ideal and real candidate, a single one of the essential or more important gifts and graces of an apostolic gospel minister,—piety, knowledge of the word, ability and fidelity in ministering the word, the anointing of the Holy Spirit, etc. Why is this? Are not these desired by your people, or are they presumed to exist in all candidates? If these notes are true pointers to his most prominent characteristics, he is better adapted to “a church of the world” than to a church of Jesus Christ. Ever yours for Christ.—Rev. E. P. Marvin (Presbyterian.)